The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
First Law metaphysics question
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: exartiem on June 03, 2019, 12:52:07 AM ---I doubt that the White Council depends on American or Western legal system definitions to enforce their laws of magic.
--- End quote ---
The proper translation of the first law into English would depend on common law legal definitions, which is what I was using. Though I do believe the "human being" part of the definition is a "recent" American change from the original "person."
I don't think the first law is violated when there is an intervening sufficient cause of death. That is, a cause that would have resulted in death even if magic hadn't been involved. For example, if in the first example, the bullet through the head would have killed the person regardless of whether or not they had been burned.
I do think that the only thing intent effects is the amount of stain.
I do think some amount of intervening causes, even if they have nothing to do with choice, removes the taint. Think Butterfly Effect. (click to show/hide)The term, closely associated with the work of Edward Lorenz, is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect Harry uses magic. That use effects weather causing a death halfway around the world. First Law violation? I doubt it. My question is how much metaphysical distance between cause and effect is needed. I have no idea.
g33k:
There's also this: the White Council's "Laws" seem largely designed to mirror some sort of "moral truth" and "Natural Law" in the Dresdenverse.
The "stain" of breaking the laws, the moral corruption, is there whether or not the Council knows or suspects the sorceror has done so. Similarly, they may kill someone for lawbreaking, and be mistaken about them (though IIRC there's strong evidence of at least a soulgaze before an execution).
FWIW.
exartiem:
That is what the soul gaze, which I mentioned, is for.
--- Quote from: exartiem on June 02, 2019, 01:23:20 PM ---
My point is, not matter the physical outcome, the warden is going to soul gaze you to learn your intent and whether the act left a stain of black magic on you and judge you based on that.
--- End quote ---
Even if you used a gun to finish off someone you 99% killed with magic, if you took satisfaction or pleasure from the act then it likely left that stain. The wardens would not let you lawyer your way out. The accused doesn't get a court appointed attorney.
If Western legal precedent applies, then consider this: Attempted Murder carries the same penalty as Murder because the intent was there. If you try to murder someone by shooting them in the head and they stagger backwards into traffic and get hit by a truck, you still get life in prison.
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: exartiem on June 03, 2019, 11:23:33 PM ---[1.] Attempted Murder carries the same penalty as Murder because the intent was there. [2.] If you try to murder someone by shooting them in the head and they stagger backwards into traffic and get hit by a truck, you still get [the same sentence].
--- End quote ---
1. No, unless your talking about way back when every felony was punishable by death.
2. Yes because you had intent to kill and kill you did. Also felony murder because of the attempted murder.
(Of course, I'm only speaking to the common law tradition because I know very little about the civil law system. "Western legal precedent" would encompass both).
Just Al:
Reading this thread made me think about Scalzi's novella "The Dispatcher". If you haven't read it, the main conceit is that you CAN'T kill someone. If you shoot someone in the head, they will wake up in their bed the next morning as if nothing happened.
The only way to actually get kill someone is to put them in a place where they will slowly die of hunger or thirst. That way when they come back they will be on the verge of dying anyway.
This sort of arrangement would not technically violate the use of magic clause, as in the example of walling some one up using magic. You didn't kill them, thirst did. You just made sure they couldn't get out.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version